BojanglesPaladin:dericwater: Simple thing to do: vote out all the GOPs in congress who did everything they could to stymie Obama's plans.

Your vote is yours to do with as you see fit.

But as I pointed out above, Obama pretty much GOT what he asked for in the Stimulus Bill that was supposed to use Keynsian economics and hasten a recovery through the use of 800 BIllion tax dollars. He signed it about a month after he took office and while the democrats still had effective control of both houses. But even then, more Democrats voted against it than Republicans voted for it.

But regardless of the whys and wherefores, The Stimulus did not produce the desired or promised results, despite the cost.

So instead of a stimulus consisting of 33% tax cuts, what should've been done?

MattStafford:DamnYankees: MattStafford: If they paid you through debt, and you didn't do anything for them, it was bad.

This makes no sense at all. How is the fact that its debt relevant at all? If Google borrows the money from Jim Smith, how is that relevant? The existence of debt is merely a contractual relationship between the borrower and lender. It's completely irrelevant to whether or not the underlying transaction is a good idea.

Not via fractional reserve banking

Which has absolutely nothing to do with (i) the topic at hand or (ii) government borrowing.

That depends on how you define "pretty much". There were a lot of compromises that dampened the effectiveness of the stimulus. Collins killed the part of the plan that renovated schools all across the country. Snowe demanded an inclusion of an annual fix that exempts the middle class from the AMT -- costing $70B while providing no stimulus. Just a couple of examples.

DamnYankees:MattStafford: DamnYankees: MattStafford: If they paid you through debt, and you didn't do anything for them, it was bad.

This makes no sense at all. How is the fact that its debt relevant at all? If Google borrows the money from Jim Smith, how is that relevant? The existence of debt is merely a contractual relationship between the borrower and lender. It's completely irrelevant to whether or not the underlying transaction is a good idea.

Not via fractional reserve banking

Which has absolutely nothing to do with (i) the topic at hand or (ii) government borrowing.

skullkrusher:you're missing the fact that ROI works differently for the government than it does for private entities.

The government hires 10 people at $10k a year. First of all, they get a portion of that back in taxes - we'll call it 10%.Those people then spend that remaining $9k each, netting the government $900 on the total transactions.Those people spend the remaining $8,100 raising $810 in revenues for the government...until eventually the government has recouped the entire expenditure while ALSO stimulating economic demand to encourage organic economics growth which leads to future revenues

Well, your first assumption is that it isn't immediately spent on a Japanese TV. Second, you need to come up with the interest from somewhere, which your example does not account for. Finally, you have created an economy that never invests in anything. It is just straight consumption, no investment.

DamnYankees:No, it's basic economics. It's sort of like how if you lose your job, you might borrow money from your parents in order to go back to school and get a better degree, to get a better job and then pay your parents back.

This, to you, is insanity?

I have said, numerous times, that I am fine with going into debt for education.

If you lost your job, and borrowed money from your parents to party like your college days, then that would be a problem.

skullkrusher:MattStafford: The only thing I'm against is going into debt and using it to pay for things with an ROI less than one.

that's the thing. Virtually nothing the government spends on domestically will generate an ROI of less than 1. Some things will lead to greater productivity boosts (roads and bridges) than others (ditches and crop circles) but in the end the ROI will always be at least in the vicinity of 1

I should add that this is assuming a closed economy. Negative net exports does bleed money out

lennavan:Because it turned out the economy was worse than we originally thought. When a band-aid fails to cure a gun shot wound, you don't conclude band-aids never work

And yet, If a doctor applied a band-aid to a gunshot wound and sent you home with aspirin, that Doctor would be fired, right?

lennavan:Folks, I think we have found the problem. Now if only we could get the right wingers to actually address it.

Be careful what you wish for.

One of the most often cited reasons for companies holding on to their cash reserves is that it is a response to an uncertain economic enviornment , regulatory uncertainty, and an unknown tax landscape. Right winger might very well "address" that problem by voting in Romney, and putting businesses at ease that their money is safer without Obama and over-regulation wil lbe eased and they will start spending again.

MattStafford:skullkrusher: you're missing the fact that ROI works differently for the government than it does for private entities.

The government hires 10 people at $10k a year. First of all, they get a portion of that back in taxes - we'll call it 10%.Those people then spend that remaining $9k each, netting the government $900 on the total transactions.Those people spend the remaining $8,100 raising $810 in revenues for the government...until eventually the government has recouped the entire expenditure while ALSO stimulating economic demand to encourage organic economics growth which leads to future revenues

Well, your first assumption is that it isn't immediately spent on a Japanese TV. Second, you need to come up with the interest from somewhere, which your example does not account for. Finally, you have created an economy that never invests in anything. It is just straight consumption, no investment.

Interest paid to foreign creditors and imports is an issue in this scenario. Domestic investment is not.

BojanglesPaladin:Right winger might very well "address" that problem by voting in Romney, and putting businesses at ease that their money is safer without Obama and over-regulation wil lbe eased and they will start spending again.

BojanglesPaladin:The Stimulus did not produce the desired or promised results, despite the cost.

Is your contention that it produced no beneficial results or that it didn't live up to the advertisement? You only need to watch 1 action figure commercial from the 80s to know it isn't as cool in real life as advertised.

Alright, I need to leave this thread for a little bit, but I do want to leave everyone of the following.

Going into debt to pay people to dig ditches and fill them back up creates long term growth.

Just think about all the parts of that statement. What exactly going into debt means. What happens when you are forced to pay off debt. What benefits you get from people digging ditches. How their economic actions relate to the rest of the economy. Let it all sink in.

MattStafford:Just think about all the parts of that statement. What exactly going into debt means. What happens when you are forced to pay off debt. What benefits you get from people digging ditches. How their economic actions relate to the rest of the economy. Let it all sink in.

Please do the same, and stop thinking about the productivity of the ditch digging (which is irrelevant) and think about the economic effect of "poor people having more money", which is really what we're talking about.

MattStafford:Going into debt to pay people to dig ditches and fill them back up creates long term growth.

You've said repeatedly you support spending on building roads and bridges yet every time you talk about going into debt the money is going into digging ditches and not on building roads and bridges. You make no sense. Please don't come back.

MFL:This jobs report was predictably horrible. Now we get another round of QE which is going to do nothing more than artificially prop up the stock market, raise food prices, raise gas prices, and stall out the economy again in a few months as all the middle class discretionary income gets eaten up. (like it has done every year for the last 3 farking years!)

Despite the drama over the last few days, this president's economic record is pathetic. We are not recovering, we are treading water. Only cool-aid drinkers and fools believe the nonsense about 4.5 million jobs he was selling. Hell we lost 5 million, so in reality we're not even back to go yet, which is absolutely pathetic if we are actually in this supposed recovery.

Lets break it down.

The Reagan recovery.[www.nationalreview.com image 630x378]

The Clinton recovery[www.nationalreview.com image 630x378]

the Oba-meh recovery[www.nationalreview.com image 630x378]

You can polish turds, slay strawmen, and turn a convention into a big emotional Oprah rally, it doesn't negate the fact that Mr. Obama has no idea how to fix the economy and is floundering because his hype is wearing out.

OR it could be you can't compare apples to oranges and the Obama recovery is happening while the rest of the world is seeing the worst global recession we have ever seen?

And I'm arguing that the fact that people are willing to buy securities from the government at a negative real interest rate is evidence that there simply are no other viable opportunities for investment "somewhere else" where this money is willing to go.

Debeo Summa Credo: In order to buy the incremental treasuries that you think we should issue, those investors will have to liquidate other investments.

What other investments, exactly, do you think people have that they are turning away from in order to invest in a bond which offers a negative interest rate? Your theoretical construct makes sense and is nice, but its at odds with a reality where people are willingly investing in bonds at a negative rate.

The reality is that for the government to issue more debt, buyers of that debt will have to provide funds to the government in exchange for the debt. You get that, right?

So where do you think potential investors are currently keeping the funds that you expect them to use to buy the newly issued treasuries? I don't know how to put this more simply. They're not sitting on a pile of $100 bills.

Any money that might be used for additional treasury purchases is currently in some sort of investment or interest bearing account. They will have to liquidate those investments or withdraw from those interest bearing accounts (for instance bank deposits which fund loans) to buy the new treasuries.

BojanglesPaladin:One of the most often cited reasons for companies holding on to their cash reserves is that it is a response to an uncertain economic enviornment , regulatory uncertainty, and an unknown tax landscape. Right winger might very well "address" that problem by voting in Romney, and putting businesses at ease that their money is safer without Obama and over-regulation wil lbe eased and they will start spending again.

Except it's BS. Businesses spend their reserves to meet growing demand. Government spending is a proven method for stimulating demand.

Dusk-You-n-Me:MattStafford: Going into debt to pay people to dig ditches and fill them back up creates long term growth.

You've said repeatedly you support spending on building roads and bridges yet every time you talk about going into debt the money is going into digging ditches and not on building roads and bridges. You make no sense. Please don't come back.

And I'm arguing that the fact that people are willing to buy securities from the government at a negative real interest rate is evidence that there simply are no other viable opportunities for investment "somewhere else" where this money is willing to go.

Debeo Summa Credo: In order to buy the incremental treasuries that you think we should issue, those investors will have to liquidate other investments.

What other investments, exactly, do you think people have that they are turning away from in order to invest in a bond which offers a negative interest rate? Your theoretical construct makes sense and is nice, but its at odds with a reality where people are willingly investing in bonds at a negative rate.

The reality is that for the government to issue more debt, buyers of that debt will have to provide funds to the government in exchange for the debt. You get that, right?

So where do you think potential investors are currently keeping the funds that you expect them to use to buy the newly issued treasuries? I don't know how to put this more simply. They're not sitting on a pile of $100 bills.

Any money that might be used for additional treasury purchases is currently in some sort of investment or interest bearing account. They will have to liquidate those investments or withdraw from those interest bearing accounts (for instance bank deposits which fund loans) to buy the new treasuries.

You realize the Bid to Cover ratio for treasuries is usually around 3 right? They will sell.

impaler:NOTE: This is in "chained dollars" - i.e. adjusted for inflation.

Thank you. I think that GDP growth is one of many trusted indicators of economic growth and/or recovery, and this mnetric shows some mesurable improvement, which is good. But it is only one of many all of which must be balanced together.So GDP is up, whch is good. Unemployment is still high, which is bad. Debt and Defecit is up, which is bad. Do you have other positive metrics?

And I'm arguing that the fact that people are willing to buy securities from the government at a negative real interest rate is evidence that there simply are no other viable opportunities for investment "somewhere else" where this money is willing to go.

Debeo Summa Credo: In order to buy the incremental treasuries that you think we should issue, those investors will have to liquidate other investments.

What other investments, exactly, do you think people have that they are turning away from in order to invest in a bond which offers a negative interest rate? Your theoretical construct makes sense and is nice, but its at odds with a reality where people are willingly investing in bonds at a negative rate.

The reality is that for the government to issue more debt, buyers of that debt will have to provide funds to the government in exchange for the debt. You get that, right?

So where do you think potential investors are currently keeping the funds that you expect them to use to buy the newly issued treasuries? I don't know how to put this more simply. They're not sitting on a pile of $100 bills.

Any money that might be used for additional treasury purchases is currently in some sort of investment or interest bearing account. They will have to liquidate those investments or withdraw from those interest bearing accounts (for instance bank deposits which fund loans) to buy the new treasuries.

You realize the Bid to Cover ratio for treasuries is usually around 3 right? They will sell.

I'm not arguing that they won't sell. DamnYankees is correct that there is plenty of demand. What I'm arguing is that the funds used to buy the treasuries will need to come from somewhere else. It's not just conjured from nowhere. And although the additional govt spending funded by the incremental treasury sales will benefit the economy, whatever project/spending the cash used to buy treasuries would have funded absent the additional issuance will have a negative effect on the economy.

BojanglesPaladin:dericwater: Simple thing to do: vote out all the GOPs in congress who did everything they could to stymie Obama's plans.

Your vote is yours to do with as you see fit.

But as I pointed out above, Obama pretty much GOT what he asked for in the Stimulus Bill that was supposed to use Keynsian economics and hasten a recovery through the use of 800 BIllion tax dollars. He signed it about a month after he took office and while the democrats still had effective control of both houses. But even then, more Democrats voted against it than Republicans voted for it.

But regardless of the whys and wherefores, The Stimulus did not produce the desired or promised results, despite the cost.

It was watered down. Most economists suggested twice the amount. Obama tried compromising with the GOP.

BojanglesPaladin:Thank you. I think that GDP growth is one of many trusted indicators of economic growth and/or recovery, and this mnetric shows some mesurable improvement, which is good. But it is only one of many all of which must be balanced together.So GDP is up, whch is good. Unemployment is still high, which is bad. Debt and Defecit is up, which is bad. Do you have other positive metrics?

GDP performance during the Obama Administration has gone into positive growth.

US stock markets performance during the Obama Administration...DOW in 01/20/2009: 7,949.09DOW in 09/06/2012: 13,292.00Rate of Return: 67.21%

If you are unemployed or underemployed, you don't have a 4 year degree (or higher) and blame Obama for your situation, then maybe you should get a college degree. It is not the Government's fault you don't have the necessary skills to compete in today's world. The Government can even help you pay for it (via student loans, grants, GI Bill etc.).

And I'm arguing that the fact that people are willing to buy securities from the government at a negative real interest rate is evidence that there simply are no other viable opportunities for investment "somewhere else" where this money is willing to go.

Debeo Summa Credo: In order to buy the incremental treasuries that you think we should issue, those investors will have to liquidate other investments.

What other investments, exactly, do you think people have that they are turning away from in order to invest in a bond which offers a negative interest rate? Your theoretical construct makes sense and is nice, but its at odds with a reality where people are willingly investing in bonds at a negative rate.

The reality is that for the government to issue more debt, buyers of that debt will have to provide funds to the government in exchange for the debt. You get that, right?

So where do you think potential investors are currently keeping the funds that you expect them to use to buy the newly issued treasuries? I don't know how to put this more simply. They're not sitting on a pile of $100 bills.

Any money that might be used for additional treasury purchases is currently in some sort of investment or interest bearing account. They will have to liquidate those investments or withdraw from those interest bearing accounts (for instance bank deposits which fund loans) to buy the new treasuries.

You realize the Bid to Cover ratio for treasuries is usually around 3 right? They will sell.

I'm not arguing that they won't sell. DamnYankees is correct that there is plenty of demand. What I'm arguing is that the funds used to buy the treasuries will need to come from somewhere else. It's not just conjured from nowhere. And although the additional govt spending funded by the incremental trea ...

CPennypacker:Debeo Summa Credo: In order to buy the incremental treasuries that you think we should issue, those investors will have to liquidate other investments.

What other investments, exactly, do you think people have that they are turning away from in order to invest in a bond which offers a negative interest rate? Your theoretical construct makes sense and is nice, but its at odds with a reality where people are willingly investing in bonds at a negative rate.

The reality is that for the government to issue more debt, buyers of that debt will have to provide funds to the government in exchange for the debt. You get that, right?

So where do you think potential investors are currently keeping the funds that you expect them to use to buy the newly issued treasuries? I don't know how to put this more simply. They're not sitting on a pile of $100 bills.

Any money that might be used for additional treasury purchases is currently in some sort of investment or interest bearing account. They will have to liquidate those investments or withdraw from those interest bearing accounts (for instance bank deposits which fund loans) to buy the new treasuries.

You realize the Bid to Cover ratio for treasuries is usually around 3 right? They will sell.

I'm not arguing that they won't sell. DamnYankees is correct that there is plenty of demand. What I'm arguing is that the funds used to buy the treasuries will need to come from somewhere else. It's not just conjured from nowhere. And although the additional govt spending funded by the incremental treasury sales will benefit the economy, whatever project/spending the cash used to buy treasuries would have funded absent the additional issuance will have a negative effect on the economy...

Please. That's not the case and you know it

By all means then explain where the cash comes from to buy incremental treasury debt?

Lots to look at, thank you. I will review, but I notice that you take some pains to include some 'bbbut Bush' analysis which I generally could care less about. I'm more concerned about comparing Obama to the norms and looking at trends within the time frames he was able to exert influence.

Bottom line, I do not generally give much consideration to the line of reasoning that says basically "Compared to the bottom, Obama's gone straight up!". I find that to be kind of damning with faint praise.